On Monday, September 17, 2012 09:41:20 AM Andre Przywara wrote:
> On 09/15/2012 01:20 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >
...
> This was to overcome some nasty interaction between the Windows
> scheduler and their version of the ondemand governor.
Whoever is/was responsible for this, can you
On 09/15/2012 01:20 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Sep 4, 2012 4:26 AM, "Andre Przywara" mailto:andre.przyw...@amd.com>> wrote:
>
> To workaround some Windows specific behavior, the ACPI _PSD table
> on AMD desktop boards advertises all cores as dependent, meaning
> that they all can
On 09/15/2012 01:20 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Sep 4, 2012 4:26 AM, Andre Przywara andre.przyw...@amd.com
mailto:andre.przyw...@amd.com wrote:
To workaround some Windows specific behavior, the ACPI _PSD table
on AMD desktop boards advertises all cores as dependent, meaning
that
On Monday, September 17, 2012 09:41:20 AM Andre Przywara wrote:
On 09/15/2012 01:20 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
...
This was to overcome some nasty interaction between the Windows
scheduler and their version of the ondemand governor.
Whoever is/was responsible for this, can you explain
To workaround some Windows specific behavior, the ACPI _PSD table
on AMD desktop boards advertises all cores as dependent, meaning
that they all can only use the same P-state. acpi-cpufreq strictly
obeys this description, instantiating one CPU only and symlinking
the others. But the hardware can
To workaround some Windows specific behavior, the ACPI _PSD table
on AMD desktop boards advertises all cores as dependent, meaning
that they all can only use the same P-state. acpi-cpufreq strictly
obeys this description, instantiating one CPU only and symlinking
the others. But the hardware can
6 matches
Mail list logo
